We are in a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!

[FollowTheWay]

Hmmm. “…that Barr has cut to protect Trump.” A lot of bias and deception bound up in that phrase. The Mueller Report concludes there is no evidence of Trump, or Trump campaign, collusion. The only indication of collusion and conspiracy is that of deep state operatives and bureaucrats, and lying Dems, RINOs, and the MSM, which touts the party line.

That's NOT the conclusion of the Mueller report as Mueller himself said.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's NOT the conclusion of the Mueller report as Mueller himself said.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

 

[FollowTheWay]

FTW, the problem with your request is it is illegal for Mueller to release the grand jury part of his report. He needs a courts permission to do so. At the moment, from what I understand, the conditions for a court to do so do not exist.

I agree with this statement. Here's an analysis of the parts of the report that were redacted.
The Mueller report redactions, explained in 4 charts

Why parts of the Trump-Russia collusion section were redacted
There are four reasons Barr gave for why certain sections would be redacted, and good reasons for them:

1. Revealing it would harm an ongoing matter. Ward writes, “Some redactions in the report will exist mainly to allow other related cases to continue unimpeded.”
2. It reveals investigative techniques. Ward writes that “it’s highly likely the US government had to use sensitive spying methods — like, say, an undercover agent or top-secret surveillance technology — to investigate.”
3. It reveals private information of third-party individuals. Ward writes the “Justice Department has long had a policy of not divulging people’s names during an investigation unless they are indicted.”
4. It was obtained via grand jury testimony. This is secret by law.

So, I think that argument certainly holds for a part of the redactions. Here's where where they were in the document.


This reveals that most of the ongoing matter redactions were in sections about Russian election interference and hacking.

There’s also a decent portion of material redacted because the “Justice Department has long had a policy of not divulging people’s names during an investigation unless they are indicted,” Ward writes.

But when it came to the section on the Trump campaign’s links and contacts with Russia, the primary redaction rationale was because the information was obtained through grand jury testimony.

Many of these redactions hide details about Trump associates’ interaction with Russian officials, like the section about the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russia lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
**********************************************************************************************
My conclusion is there is a rationale for not releasing some but not all of the information that was redacted.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree with this statement. Here's an analysis of the parts of the report that were redacted.
The Mueller report redactions, explained in 4 charts

Why parts of the Trump-Russia collusion section were redacted
There are four reasons Barr gave for why certain sections would be redacted, and good reasons for them:

1. Revealing it would harm an ongoing matter. Ward writes, “Some redactions in the report will exist mainly to allow other related cases to continue unimpeded.”
2. It reveals investigative techniques. Ward writes that “it’s highly likely the US government had to use sensitive spying methods — like, say, an undercover agent or top-secret surveillance technology — to investigate.”
3. It reveals private information of third-party individuals. Ward writes the “Justice Department has long had a policy of not divulging people’s names during an investigation unless they are indicted.”
4. It was obtained via grand jury testimony. This is secret by law.

So, I think that argument certainly holds for a part of the redactions. Here's where where they were in the document.

This reveals that most of the ongoing matter redactions were in sections about Russian election interference and hacking.

There’s also a decent portion of material redacted because the “Justice Department has long had a policy of not divulging people’s names during an investigation unless they are indicted,” Ward writes.

But when it came to the section on the Trump campaign’s links and contacts with Russia, the primary redaction rationale was because the information was obtained through grand jury testimony.

Many of these redactions hide details about Trump associates’ interaction with Russian officials, like the section about the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russia lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
**********************************************************************************************
My conclusion is there is a rationale for not releasing some but not all of the information that was redacted.

Your conclusion as stated makes no sense, and you gave no argument to support it. But if you think there is good reason to unredact to attack Trump, you’re wrong.

Mueller provided the report to Barr unredacted. Mueller concluded no Trump-Russia collusion, just as Barr announced. Mueller, with his team, was supposed to provide the redacted version as well. He did not do so. Barr, with subordinate help, had to do that himself. The redaction changed nothing material, but significantly delayed release of the report.

The Dems have taken advantage of the situation Mueller created intriguingly (through his failure to redact and his subsequent whiny letter) to start playing political games.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree with this statement. Here's an analysis of the parts of the report that were redacted.
The Mueller report redactions, explained in 4 charts

Why parts of the Trump-Russia collusion section were redacted
There are four reasons Barr gave for why certain sections would be redacted, and good reasons for them:

1. Revealing it would harm an ongoing matter. Ward writes, “Some redactions in the report will exist mainly to allow other related cases to continue unimpeded.”
2. It reveals investigative techniques. Ward writes that “it’s highly likely the US government had to use sensitive spying methods — like, say, an undercover agent or top-secret surveillance technology — to investigate.”
3. It reveals private information of third-party individuals. Ward writes the “Justice Department has long had a policy of not divulging people’s names during an investigation unless they are indicted.”
4. It was obtained via grand jury testimony. This is secret by law.

So, I think that argument certainly holds for a part of the redactions. Here's where where they were in the document.

This reveals that most of the ongoing matter redactions were in sections about Russian election interference and hacking.

There’s also a decent portion of material redacted because the “Justice Department has long had a policy of not divulging people’s names during an investigation unless they are indicted,” Ward writes.

But when it came to the section on the Trump campaign’s links and contacts with Russia, the primary redaction rationale was because the information was obtained through grand jury testimony.

Many of these redactions hide details about Trump associates’ interaction with Russian officials, like the section about the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russia lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
**********************************************************************************************
My conclusion is there is a rationale for not releasing some but not all of the information that was redacted.

BTW, FTW, your source is not truthful. Barr was not obligated to release any portion of the report, but chose to do so to help ease suspicion.

In theory, the government has to release as much as it possibly can. But as former White House lawyer Andy Wright told Vox’s Alex Ward, “A redaction is sort of a compromise between withholding a document entirely versus releasing the full document.” For what it’s worth, Attorney General William Barr said the White House did not play a part in the redaction process — and that instead, it was DOJ lawyers, Mueller’s team, and members of the intelligence community.
​

At least it does point out that "...96% of the section on Trump and associates' connection to Russia is unredacted," and it shows that there was no collusion involved between them.

But that shouldn’t be the focus of this report. Much of it — including 96 percent of the section on Trump and his associates’ connection to Russia — is unredacted. From what we can gather from surrounding context, there don’t appear to be any egregious, politically motivated redactions.

​

 

[FollowTheWay]

Your conclusion as stated makes no sense, and you gave no argument to support it. But if you think there is good reason to unredact to attack Trump, you’re wrong.

Mueller provided the report to Barr unredacted. Mueller concluded no Trump-Russia collusion, just as Barr announced. Mueller, with his team, was supposed to provide the redacted version as well. He did not do so. Barr, with subordinate help, had to do that himself. The redaction changed nothing material, but significantly delayed release of the report.

The Dems have taken advantage of the situation Mueller created intriguingly (through his failure to redact and his subsequent whiny letter) to start playing political games.

The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence “to establish” or sustain criminal charges.

The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings.

The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term. The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the report said it established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

 

[FollowTheWay]

BTW, FTW, your source is not truthful. Barr was not obligated to release any portion of the report, but chose to do so to help ease suspicion.

In theory, the government has to release as much as it possibly can. But as former White House lawyer Andy Wright told Vox’s Alex Ward, “A redaction is sort of a compromise between withholding a document entirely versus releasing the full document.” For what it’s worth, Attorney General William Barr said the White House did not play a part in the redaction process — and that instead, it was DOJ lawyers, Mueller’s team, and members of the intelligence community.
​

At least it does point out that "...96% of the section on Trump and associates' connection to Russia is unredacted," and it shows that there was no collusion involved between them.

But that shouldn’t be the focus of this report. Much of it — including 96 percent of the section on Trump and his associates’ connection to Russia — is unredacted. From what we can gather from surrounding context, there don’t appear to be any egregious, politically motivated redactions.

​

What's your support for your statements?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What's your support for your statements?

Which statements? You mean the ones preceding the quoted portions from your linked article that support them?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence “to establish” or sustain criminal charges.

Meaning there was nothing to establish criminal charges whether of conspiracy or cooperation with any Russian entities—in other words no collusion.

The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings.

Information determined false might slow down investigation, but would not prevent success. Fifth-amendment pleas may be more problematic, but may have to do with aspects not part of the conspiracy theory. Flynn copped to misstating something related to a post-election meeting. Given Flynn's experience, I wouldn’t give them the time of day.

The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term.

For more than two years, your own camp—the MSM and Dems in general—accused Trump of “Russian collusion,” thus its use here. So don’t try to go all smokescreen technical now that the "Russian collusion" accusation has proven false.

The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the report said it established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

What the Russian state thought and why would be of primary interest, but is only their perception. There was no coordination, cooperation, or conspiracy with the Trump campaign. However, it is nigh tautological that someone working against your enemy will benefit you.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Meaning there was nothing to establish criminal charges whether of conspiracy or cooperation with any Russian entities—in other words no collusion.

Information determined false might slow down investigation, but would not prevent success. Fifth-amendment pleas may be more problematic, but may have to do with aspects not part of the conspiracy theory. Flynn copped to misstating something related to a post-election meeting. Given Flynn's experience, I wouldn’t give them the time of day.
For more than two years, your own camp—the MSM and Dems in general—accused Trump of “Russian collusion,” thus its use here. So don’t try to go all smokescreen technical now that the "Russian collusion" accusation has proven false.

What the Russian state thought and why would be of primary interest, but is only their perception. There was no coordination, cooperation, or conspiracy with the Trump campaign. However, it is nigh tautological that someone working against your enemy will benefit you.

No support, eh?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No support, eh?

Exactly. According to the Mueller Report, there was nothing to support an accusation of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Exactly. According to the Mueller Report, there was nothing to support an accusation of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign.

That was not the conclusion of that report.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That was not the conclusion of that report.

OK, let me guess. Without evidence to back it up, you also believe in godless evolution.

 

[FollowTheWay]

OK, let me guess. Without evidence to back it up, you also believe in godless evolution.

I don't believe in Godless anything. You should consider who is the master of your life, Jesus or the Republican Party/Trump.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don't believe in Godless anything.

It’s your awfully faulty reasoning I was referring to. You seem unable to discern the obvious witch hunt Dems are on, and the obvious conspiracies to protect Hillary and to undermine Trump.

You should consider who is the master of your life, Jesus or the Republican Party/Trump.

That’s perhaps the funniest part, your projecting that makes you imagine I think Trump so wonderful.

Trump is not my hero, nor do I put my trust in the Rep party. He just happened to be the obviously much better choice of the two front runners. I had had more than enough of Jezebel back when her husband was president. Obama is an abomination, a traitor to America, and unfortunately, not finished yet. She promised to double down doing even more damage. Plus the Dems and their party platform are far too godless to stomach in any case.

Thankfully, nothing can change the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, and Lord of all.

 

[FollowTheWay]

It’s your awfully faulty reasoning I was referring to. You seem unable to discern the obvious witch hunt Dems are on, and the obvious conspiracies to protect Hillary and to undermine Trump.

That’s perhaps the funniest part, your projecting that makes you imagine I think Trump so wonderful.

Trump is not my hero, nor do I put my trust in the Rep party. He just happened to be the obviously much better choice of the two front runners. I had had more than enough of Jezebel back when her husband was president. Obama is an abomination, a traitor to America, and unfortunately, not finished yet. She promised to double down doing even more damage. Plus the Dems and their party platform are far too godless to stomach in any case.

Thankfully, nothing can change the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, and Lord of all.

Amen to that.